500.CC/2–2145: Radiogram
The Acting Secretary of State to President Roosevelt 37
Referring to my radiogram to you yesterday, paragraph 4, the following is the text of the public statement that I propose to make in explanation and interpretation of the voting procedure at the time it is made public.
“The Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and China, and the Provisional Government of France have now agreed to propose for consideration at the San Francisco conference the following voting procedure for the Security Council:
‘1. Each member of the Security Council should have one vote. 2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters should be made by an affirmative vote of seven members. 3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters should be made by an affirmative vote of seven members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VIII, Section A and under the second sentence of paragraph 1 of Chapter VIII, Section C, a party to a dispute should abstain from voting.’
The practical effect of these provisions, taken together, is that a difference is made, so far as voting is concerned, between the quasi-judicial function of the Security Council in promoting the pacific settlement of disputes and the political function of the Council in taking action for the maintenance of peace and security.
Where the Council is engaged in performing its quasi-judicial function of promoting pacific settlement of disputes, no nation, large or small, should be above the law. This means that no nation, large or small, if a party to a dispute, would participate in the decisions of the Security Council on questions like the following: (a) whether a matter should be investigated, (b) whether the dispute or situation is of such a nature that its continuation is likely to threaten the peace, (c) whether the Council should call on the parties to settle a dispute by means of their own choice, (d) whether, if the dispute is referred to the Council, a recommendation should be made as to methods and procedures of settlement, (e) whether the Council should make such recommendation before the dispute is referred to it, (f) what should be the nature of this recommendation, (g) whether the legal aspects of the dispute should be referred to the Court for advice, (h) whether a regional agency should be asked to concern itself with the dispute, and (i) whether the dispute should be referred to the General Assembly.
Where the Council is engaged in performing its political function of action for the maintenance of peace and security, a difference is made between the permanent members of the Council and other nations for the practical reason that the permanent members of the Council must, as a matter of necessity, bear the principal responsibility for action. Unanimous agreement among the permanent members of the Council is therefore requisite. In such matters, therefore, the [Page 82] concurrence of all the permanent members would be required. Examples are: (a) determination of the existence of a threat or breach of the peace, (b) use of force or other enforcement measures, (c) approval of agreements for supply of armed forces, (d) matters relating to the regulation of armaments, and (e) matters concerning the suspension and expulsion of members, and the admission of new members.”
In the event that France does not accept the proposal the introductory sentence to the foregoing text will be modified accordingly. Your approval of the foregoing statement is respectfully requested.38
- Text transmitted to Secretary Stettinius in Mexico City in telegram 349, February 21, 7 p.m., not printed.↩
- The Department was informed, in telegram of February 24 (filed in Hyde Park Library) of Presidential approval of the proposed interpretive statement on voting procedure, subject to appropriate modification of the preamble in case France had not expressed agreement.↩